http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: SRI B. RAJGOPALA RAO & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SRI APPAYYA DORA HANUMANTHU & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT29/09/1989

BENCH: KANIA, M.H. BENCH: KANIA, M.H. RANGNATHAN, S. SAIKIA, K.N. (J)

CITATION:  1990 AIR 1889            1989 SCR  Supl. (1) 335  1989 SCC  Supl.  (2) 504 JT 1989 (4)   186  1989 SCALE  (2)891

ACT:     The  Representation  of the People Act,  1951--  Section 123(1)(A)(b)--Corrupt practices--Whether certain  statements made  and published through the Publicity Department of  the Govt. in newspapers offering rice and dhoties on  subsidised rates to the economically backward classes of people  amount to corrupt practice.

HEADNOTE:     These  two  appeals arise out of the  judgments  in  two Election  Petitions  before the Andhra  Pradesh  High  Court questioning the election of respondent No. 1 as a Member  of Parliament from Srikakulam No. 1 Parliamentary  constituency in  the 8th General Election to the House of the  People  on the  ground that Shri N .T. Rama Rao the Chief  Minister  of Andhra  Pradesh  as well as respondent No.  1  gave  certain speeches  and certain advertisements were got  published  by Shri  N.T. Rama Rao through the Publicity Department of  the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh in the newspapers containing certain statements which are alleged to amount to a corrupt practice within  the meaning of Section 123(1)(A) of the  Representa- tion of the People Act 1951. Dismissing the appeals, this Court,     HELD:  That these advertisements and speeches amount  to nothing  more than statements extorting the achievements  of the  Government  of the State of Andhra  Pradesh  under  the Telegu Desham party headed by N.T. Rama Rao, Chief  Minister and  contain normal election promises and  these  advertise- ments  donot amount to corrupt practices falling within  the scope of sub-clause (b) of clause (A) of sub-section (1)  of Section 123 of the said Act. [337H; 338A]     Ghasi  Ram v. Dal Singh & Ors., [1968] 3 SCR 102 at  pp. 109-110;  Bhanu Kumar Shastri v. Mohal Lal Sukhadia &  Ors., [1971] 3 SCR 522 at p. 543 and Harjit Singh Mann v. S. Umrao Singh & Ors., [1980] 2 SCR 501 at p. 510, referred to.

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 484  &

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

485 of 1987. 336     From  the  Judgment  and Order dated  2.12.1986  of  the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Election Petition Nos. 3 & 5 of 1985.     P.P.  Rao, P. Krishna Rao, V.A. Babu and  K.R.  Nagaraja for the Appellants.     Shanti  Bhushan, G. Narasimhulu and T.V.S.N.  Chari  for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     KANIA,  J. These two appeals arise out of the  judgments in  two Election Petitions in the Andhra Pradesh High  Court questioning the election of respondent No. 1 as a Member  of Parliament from Srikakulam No. 1 Parliamentary  Constituency in the 8th General Election to the House of the People.  The points  raised  in these appeals are common and so  are  the relevant  facts; and, hence, they are being disposed  of  by this  common judgment. We propose to take note of  only  the few  facts which are necessary for the appreciation  of  the controversy before us.     The polling date for the said election along with  other parliamentary  elections in the State of Andhra Pradesh  was December  27,  1984 but in Srikakulam  No.  1  Parliamentary Constituency  the polling was countermanded and the date  of polling  was  later fixed on January 28, 1985. In  both  the Election  Petitions  the election of respondent  No.  1  was questioned mainly on the ground that Shri N.T. Rama Rao, the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh as well as the President of the  Telugu  Desam  Party as well as respondent  N.  1  gave certain  speeches and certain advertisements were  got  pub- lished  by Shri N.T. Rama Rao through the Publicity  Depart- ment  of the Government of Andhra Pradesh in the  newspapers containing certain statements which are alleged to amount to a  corrupt practice within the meaning of the said  term  in section  123(1)(A) of the Representation of the People  Act, 1951  (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). The  main question  canvassed  before  us is  whether  the  statements contained  in  these aforesaid advertisements  amount  to  a corrupt practice under section 123(1)(A)(b) of the said Act. Section 123(1)(A)(b) of the said Act runs as follows:               "123. Corrupt practices                          The following shall be deemed to be               corrupt  practices  for the purposes  of  this               Act:               337               (1) ’Bribery’, that is to say-               (A) any gift, offer or promise by a  candidate               or  his agent or by any other person with  the               consent  of a candidate or his election  agent               of any gratification, to any person  whomsoev-               er, with the object, directly or indirectly of               inducing--                (a) x               x                        (b)  an  elector to vote  or  refrain               from  voting  at an election, or as  a  reward               to--               (i) a person for having so stood or not stood,               or  for having withdrawn or not  having  with-               drawn his candidature; or               (ii) an elector for having voted or  refrained               from voting."     The  advertisements  very shortly stated, refer  to  the auspicious gifts made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to the poor people on the eve of New Year and Sankranti. In the said  advertisements, it is stated that the said  Government

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

which was formed by the Telugu Desam Party was giving to the poor people whose income was below Rs.6,000 per year, a kilo of rice at Rs.2 per Kg. and the said advertisements referred to a new scheme of selling sarees and dhoties at half prices to  the  poor people in the State of Andhra  Pradesh  having Green-cards.  Green-cards were directed to be issued to  all the  persons  whose annual income was  below  Rs.6,000.  The supply of the rice at subsidised rates as aforesaid was also to  be  made to the Green-card holders only. The  scheme  to sell sarees and dhoties at subsidised rates was to be opera- tive from January 26, 1985 to March 31, 1985.     In considering the question whether the said  advertise- ment and the said speeches amount to a corrupt practice,  we are  of the view that the provisions of section 123  of  the said Act which deal with corrupt practices have to be inter- preted, keeping in mind that dictates of commonsense require that  they  never could have been intended to  treat  normal election  promises  made in election  manifestoes  or  usual election  speeches by members of various  political  parties aspiring  to power and by different candidates  aspiring  to get  elected  to  legislative bodies  concerned  as  corrupt practices. We are of the view that these advertisements  and speeches  amount to nothing more than  statements  extolling the achievements of the Government of the State of Andhra 338 Pradesh  under  the Telugu Desam Party headed By  N.T.  Rama Rao, the Chief Minister and contain normal election promises and  these  statements do not amount  to  corrupt  practices falling within the scope of sub-clause (b) of clause (A)  of sub-section (1) of section 123 of the said Act.     It was urged by Mr. Rao, learned counsel for the  appel- lants  that  in the impugned judgments, the High  Court  has incorrectly taken the view that in order to amount to  brib- ery  within  the  meaning  of  the  said  term  in   section 123(1)(A),  the transaction must amount to a bargain by  the candidate  with a view to get votes. It was pointed  out  by him that the said view has been taken in the impugned  judg- ments,  relying upon the decision of a Bench comprising  two learned  Judges of this Court in Ghasi Ram v. Dal Singh  and Others, [1968] 3 SCR 102 at pp 109-110. We have gone through to  the relevant portion of that judgment (at page  109  and 110  of  the  said report). A careful perusal  of  the  said judgment  shows that what has been really held in that  case is  that if the promises given or made amount to  a  bargain entered into by a candidate for a vote or votes, that  would amount to a corrupt practice; but it has not been held there that  unless the act alleged amounts to such a  bargain,  it could  not amount to a corrupt practice. In our  view,  that judgment  does  not lay down that in order to  amount  to  a corrupt  practice, the transaction must amount to a  bargain for getting a vote. It was pointed out by Mr. Rao,  however, that  such  a  view seems to have been taken  in  two  other decisions  rendered  by  two Benches,  each  comprising  two learned Judges of this Court in Bhanu Kumar Shastri v. Mohan Lal  Sukhadia  and Others, [1971] 3 SCR 522 at  p.  543  and Harjit Singh Mann v. S. Umrao Singh and Others, [1980] 2 SCR 501 at p. 5 10 and these judgments need to be overruled.  We do  not propose to go into the correctness or  otherwise  of this  view  because, even on the footing that  in  order  to amount  to a corrupt practice under the aforesaid  provision the  alleged  acts need not constitute a bargain,  the  acts established  in  the present case, in our  opinion,  do  not amount to a corrupt practice.     Our  attention was drawn by Mr. Rao to the fact that  in this case the said advertisements and the speeches had to be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

viewed  in the context of the fact that  the  advertisements were issued and the speeches were made after respondent  No. 1  filed his nomination papers on January 4, 1985,  for  the election  and before the election was held in the  aforesaid constituency. It was further pointed out that the offer made for  the sale of sarees and dhoties at subsidised rates  was limited  to  the period from January 26, 1985 to  March  31, 1985. It 339 cannot be denied that these factors are relevant factors. We cannot, however, lose sight of the fact that this offer  was made not only in this constituency but throughout the  State where  the elections to the House of the People were  sched- uled  to  be held, and were, in fact, held on  December  27, 1984.  It  was only in case of this  constituency  that  the election to be held on the scheduled date was  countermanded and later held on January 28, 1985. We cannot lose sight  of the  fact  that, as far as the said speeches  and  the  said advertisements,  which were issued by the Publicity  Depart- ment of the State, are concerned, they deal in the main with the achievements of the Government of Andhra Pradesh  which, of  course, was being run by Ministers belonging  to  Telugu Desam  Party to which respondent No. 1 also belonged.  More- over,  the  offer  in the advertisements  for  the  sale  of dhoties and sarees at discount rates was in the nature of  a benefit  offered to poor persons in that State. When a  Gov- ernment  announces the measures which are intended  for  the benefit  of any of the classes for whose the Government  can normally be expected to work like the poor or the economical backward classes, it is only in rare circumstances that such a promise can be said to amount to a corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123(1)(A) even though such a  promise might be made on the eve of elections. Keeping this in mind, in  our  opinion,  although the offer to  sell  dhoties  and sarees at discount rates was of a limited duration as afore- stated, it cannot be regarded as a corrupt practice. Such an offer  was bound to have financial repercussions and  it  is quite  possible  the duration of the offer  was  limited  to enable  the Government to study the financial  repercussions rather  than from any improper motive. We find  support  for this view from the decision of this Court in H.V. Kamath  v. Ch.  Nitiraj Singh, [1969] 1 SCC 601.1n that case  an  Ordi- nance  was passed by the Government of Madhya Pradesh  as  a result  of which a large number of  agriculturists,  namely, those holdings of plots of land of less than 7.5 acres  area of paying land revenue not exceeding Rs.5 were exempted from the  payment  of the land revenue. It was held that  such  a concession  does not amount to a gift, offer or  promise  of any gratification within the meaning of section 123(1)(A) of the  said Act nor does the announcement of  the  declaration made  at a meeting shortly before the election or the  issue of a pamphlet containing that declaration at that time carry the  matter any further. It was held that neither Shri  D.P. Misra  who  was the Chief Minister nor Shri S.K.  Dixit  who acted  as  his  agent were guilty of  any  corrupt  practice within the meaning of the aforesaid provision.     It was next contended by Mr. Rao, although very faintly, that  the High Court was in error as it had not decided  all other issues which 340 were  raised  in the election petition. In  this  regard  we cannot  lose sight of the fact that the term of the  present Lok Sabha is likely to be over within a few months and fresh elections are likely to be held and it would, therefore,  be an  exercise  in futility to remand the matter to  the  High

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

Court for deciding the remaining issues.     In  the  result,  the appeals fail  and  are  dismissed. Looking  to the facts and circumstances of the  case,  there will be no order as to costs. R.N  .J.                                       Appeals  dis- missed. 341